http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-06
07:03:23 UTC ---
Maybe-uninitialized warnings have tons of known false positives, while the
predicated analysis can handle the simplest cases, it can't handle anything
more complicated. As this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
--- Comment #3 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06 06:32:15 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Wed Mar 6 06:32:03 2013
New Revision: 196485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196485
Log:
2013-03-06 Joey Ye
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett 2013-03-06 02:06:03 UTC
---
It does fix that warning, but there's a bug in the analysis that makes it a
false positive. I've had difficulty reducing it to a self-contained example,
and I don't have the expe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #13 from Kazumoto Kojima 2013-03-06
01:08:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I'd like to add a test case to the test suite for this PR first, if that's OK.
Sounds good idea.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06 01:05:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> >
> > I'm also noticing that -ffast-math is inhibiting fmac emission in some
> > cases:
> >
> > Compiled with: -O3 -mfused-madd -ffast-math
> >
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Bug #: 56547
Summary: [SH] missed opportunity for fmac with -ffast-math
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06
00:54:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I've tried current 4.6/4.7/4.8 with --enable-checking=df on sh4-linux
> and found that the ice has gone for both original and reduced test cases.
> I'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima 2013-03-06
00:45:48 UTC ---
I've tried current 4.6/4.7/4.8 with --enable-checking=df on sh4-linux
and found that the ice has gone for both original and reduced test cases.
I'd like to close this PR unle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06 00:41:33
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Mar 6 00:41:25 2013
New Revision: 196484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196484
Log:
PR target/56529
* config/sh/sh.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|avr |
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47270
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49319
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 regression]|[4.7 regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #10 from S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39753
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55364
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55364
--- Comment #2 from Cary Coutant 2013-03-05
23:08:52 UTC ---
Author: ccoutant
Date: Tue Mar 5 23:08:45 2013
New Revision: 196480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196480
Log:
gcc/
PR debug/55364
* dwarf2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
22:31:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 22:31:50 2013
New Revision: 196479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196479
Log:
PR debug/56510
* cfgexpand.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56484
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
22:25:50 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 22:25:43 2013
New Revision: 196478
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196478
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56484
* ifc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-05
22:20:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> If it's easier to just disable the dg-final, that's fine too.
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00210.html. Can
you com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56546
Bug #: 56546
Summary: Using the divide operator on unsigned int produces
incorrect code on AVR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55364
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unass
cc version 4.8.0 20130305 (experimental) [gcc-4_8-trunk revision 196448]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2013-03-05 20:18:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Presumably my judgment was a bit premature and I think there is a logical flaw
in my original argumentation: I think I misinterpreted 14.5.3 p5. I'm switchin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51884
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericmartinchristiansen at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56545
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55357
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56545
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-05
19:11:38 UTC ---
Both the reduced testcase and the original one works fine with current mainline
and 4_7-branch for me. Thus I don't think this is a Dup of 54126, I think it
can be closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56545
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-05
19:01:18 UTC ---
If it's easier to just disable the dg-final, that's fine too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50276
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-05
18:58:41 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 5 18:58:36 2013
New Revision: 196472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196472
Log:
PR c++/50276
* g++.dg/cpp0x/lam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56545
--- Comment #1 from Eric Christiansen
2013-03-05 18:42:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29591
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29591
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56544
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56545
Bug #: 56545
Summary: internal compiler error: in
build_data_member_initialization, at
cp/semantics.c:5790
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56544
Bug #: 56544
Summary: documentation for __cplusplus is out of date
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-03-05
18:00:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 29590
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29590
WIP: proposed patch special casing constant phi arguments
Ian.
Sure, I can handle SSA_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Bug #: 56543
Summary: [4.7.3/4.8 Regression] ICE on valid code in
copy_node_stat
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52183
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50276
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56542
Bug #: 56542
Summary: complex number division underflow on darwin11 without
-lm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-05
16:55:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > What is supposed to be tested? Should the whole test skipped on darwin or
> > only
> > the dg-final?
>
> The whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-05
16:49:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Which is the testcase that still fails? The attached and more reduced ones
> pass for me ...
The testcase from comment #10 (called "Another unre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56541
Bug #: 56541
Summary: vectorizaton fails in conditional assignment of a
constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-05
16:40:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I have a fix proper for this problem in testing.
Posted for discussion here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00193.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56540
Bug #: 56540
Summary: No __SIZEOF__XXX__ macro for __float128
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-05
16:27:50 UTC ---
N.B. -O3 is needed to trigger the bug with 4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-03-05
16:24:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29588
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29588
reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Bug #: 56539
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed:
caused by -foptimize-sibling-calls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #34 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-05
16:05:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 29587
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29587
Patch to restore LTO bootstrap with Ada + comment tweaks
OK, this is the patch I've tested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
15:52:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:51:48 2013
New Revision: 196469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196469
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* ggc-comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
15:50:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:50:38 2013
New Revision: 196468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196468
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* lra.c (l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
15:49:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:49:43 2013
New Revision: 196467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196467
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* sched-de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-05 15:48:03 UTC ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
>
> --- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-05
15:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> What is supposed to be tested? Should the whole test skipped on darwin or only
> the dg-final?
The whole test; the test is verifying that the x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-05
15:32:15 UTC ---
> But in all places I found we check TREE_ASM_WRITTEN on DECL_INITIAL
> of the SYMBOL_REF_DECL ...
Nope, maybe_output_constant_def_contents has:
rtx symbol = XEXP (desc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-05
15:16:59 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:16:49 2013
New Revision: 196466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196466
Log:
PR middle-end/56526
* simple-ob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-03-05 15:11:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> This failure has re-appeared at r196444 on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/thunk1.C -std=gnu++98 scan-assembler-times
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-05 15:09:06 UTC ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
>
> --- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56521
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-03-05
15:03:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 5 15:02:58 2013
New Revision: 196465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196465
Log:
2013-03-05 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #12 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-05
15:01:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> It seems that darwin doesn't do PIC the way ELF targets do, so this test
> should
> be skipped.
I also confirmed this with stock gcc trunk (to ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56536
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-05
14:45:32 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:45:23 2013
New Revision: 196464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196464
Log:
gcc/
PR c++/55135
* except
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56533
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55786
Andreas Beckmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at abeckmann dot de
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-05
14:39:00 UTC ---
> So we can revert the part of the patch that ends up not creating
> a new decl but only transfer DECL_ALIGN. But then we still don't
> "merge" the decls we use to refer to th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56533
Matthijs Kooijman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56538
Bug #: 56538
Summary: No opiton to disable slow 'lock' instr. one does not
need
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-05 14:26:00 UTC ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
>
> --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-05
14:23:19 UTC ---
> Hmm, but when I use the same contents for the two arrays in my simple
> testcase I do get only a single .LC0 output referenced from two places.
> We will end up sharing the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56537
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56537
Bug #: 56537
Summary: [C++11] lambda expression treats members as const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-05 13:58:15 UTC ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
>
> --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56536
Bug #: 56536
Summary: GCC with LTO and `-march=pentium3' tries to generate
SSE2 code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535
Bug #: 56535
Summary: ICE: in build2_stat, at tree.c:3885 when compiling
with -fsanitize=address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-05
13:51:28 UTC ---
> The question is why we don't hit lto-lang.c:lto_set_decl_assembler_name
> mangling of !TREE_PUBLIC decls when streaming in the decl for the constant
> pool entries (or when c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-05
13:48:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 29584
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29584
m32 thunk1.s -std=gnu++98 on x86_64-apple-darwin12 at r196444
Generated with...
/sw/src/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-05
13:31:14 UTC ---
Looks like a Dup of PR55786.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener 2013-03-05
13:19:53 UTC ---
Btw, I cannot reproduce the issue with
t.c:
void bar (int *);
void foo (void)
{
int a[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
Bug #: 56534
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE Segfault on invalid code in
check_elaborated_type_specifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56533
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman 2013-03-05
13:06:18 UTC ---
Seems I made a wrong observation in my original report: When I link main.o
instead of main.a, the problem does _not_ go away. In fact, I can remove a few
more flags then, wh
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
